Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Voluntary Compliance
Strategies Show Promising Results, but Should be Fully Evaluated
Before They Are Expanded (19-MAR-04, GAO-04-378).
Because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
can inspect only a fraction of 7 million U.S. worksites each year
in its efforts to ensure safe and healthy working conditions, the
agency has increasingly supplemented enforcement with "voluntary
compliance strategies" to reach more employers and employ its
resources most effectively. GAO assessed the types of strategies
used, the extent of their use, and their effectiveness. GAO also
obtained suggestions from specialists for additional voluntary
compliance strategies.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-378
ACCNO: A09507
TITLE: Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Voluntary Compliance
Strategies Show Promising Results, but Should be Fully Evaluated
Before They Are Expanded
DATE: 03/19/2004
SUBJECT: Occupational health and safety programs
Occupational safety
Program evaluation
Safety regulation
State-administered programs
Strategic planning
Voluntary compliance
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
OSHA Alliance Program
OSHA State Consultation Program
OSHA Strategic Partnership Program
OSHA Voluntary Protection Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-378
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives
March 2004
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH
OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show Promising Results, but Should Be
Fully Evaluated before They Are Expanded
GAO-04-378
Highlights of GAO-04-378, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives
Because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can
inspect only a fraction of 7 million U.S. worksites each year in its
efforts to ensure safe and healthy working conditions, the agency has
increasingly supplemented enforcement with "voluntary compliance
strategies" to reach more employers and employ its resources most
effectively. GAO assessed the types of strategies used, the extent of
their use, and their effectiveness. GAO also obtained suggestions from
specialists for additional voluntary compliance strategies.
To strengthen OSHA's use of its voluntary compliance strategies, GAO
recommends that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health to (1) identify cost-effective methods of
assessing the effectiveness of OSHA's voluntary compliance programs and
(2) develop a strategic framework that articulates the priorities and
resource allocations for the agency's voluntary compliance programs before
further expanding the use of these strategies.
In its written comments on the draft report, OSHA generally agreed with
our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
March 2004
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH
OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show Promising Results, but Should Be
Fully Evaluated before They Are Expanded
OSHA has implemented four voluntary programs, using a mix of strategies,
that have extended its reach to a growing number of employers. For
example, one program recognizes more than 1,000 worksites with exemplary
records and practices while another focuses on hazardous industries,
encouraging more than 200 employers to eliminate serious hazards. The
agency plans to significantly expand its voluntary compliance programs
over the next few years, although such expansion may tax its limited
resources.
OSHA's voluntary compliance programs appear to have yielded many positive
outcomes, but the agency does not yet have adequate data to assess their
individual and relative effectiveness. Employers and employees at nine
worksites we visited attested to reductions in injuries and illnesses and
improved relationships with one another and with OSHA. However, the agency
has just begun to evaluate its programs and much of its data are
insufficient for evaluation. For example, data on one program are
inconsistent, making comparisons difficult, and goals for another program
are individually developed and not readily measurable. The lack of such
data makes it difficult for OSHA to articulate priorities and necessary
resource allocations. The additional strategies that researchers and
specialists suggested generally fell into four categories: providing more
incentives to encourage additional employers to voluntarily improve
workplace safety and health; promoting more systematic approaches to
workplace safety and health; focusing more specifically on high-hazard,
high-injury workplaces; and using third-party approaches to achieve
voluntary compliance.
Growth in Voluntary Compliance Programs, 1993 to 2003
Number of worksites, partnerships, or programs 1,200 1,000
800
600
400 200
0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Worksites with exemplary safety and health programs in Voluntary
Protection Programs
Small business worksites recognized by state programs for having exemplary
safety and health programs (Data only available for states under federal
OSHA authority from 1998 on)
Strategic partnership agreements addressing specific industry problems at
multiple worksites
Alliance agreements primarily with trade or professional organizations to
conduct training and outreach-related activities
Source: OSHA.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-378.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Bob Robertson at (202)
512-7215 or [email protected].
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
OSHA Has Employed a Variety of Voluntary Compliance Strategies,
Which Has Extended the Agency's Reach to a Growing Number of Employers
Voluntary Strategies Appear to Have Many Positive Outcomes, but the
Absence of Comprehensive Data Limits Assessment Researchers and Other
Specialists Suggested a Variety of
Additional Voluntary Compliance Strategies Conclusions Recommendations for
Executive Action Agency Comments
1
2 4
7
25
33 43 43 44
Appendix I Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration 46
GAO Comments 48
Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 49
GAO Contacts 49
Staff Acknowledgments 49
Tables
Table 1: Summary of OSHA's Four Voluntary Compliance Programs 8
Table 2: Additional Voluntary Compliance Strategies 34
Figures
Figure 1: Example of a SHARP Worksite 10
Figure 2: Federal and State-Plan State VPP Worksites, by 11
Industry
Figure 3: Federal VPP Worksites, by Size of Employer 12
Figure 4: Example of a VPP Worksite 13
Figure 5: Example of a Strategic Partnership 15
Figure 6: Strategic Partnership Programs in Federal OSHA
States,
by Industry or Area of Emphasis 16
Figure 7: Example of an Alliance 18
Figure 8: Growth in Voluntary Compliance Programs, 1993 to 2003 20
Figure 9: Use of OSHA's Budget for Fiscal Years 1996 to 2003, by Program
22
Figure 10: Links between Occupational Safety and Health and Workers'
Compensation Programs in Oregon and California 36
Abbreviations
OSH Occupational Safety and Health
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
SAFE Act Safety Advancement for Employees Act of 1999
SHARP Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program
VPP Voluntary Protection Programs
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
March 19, 2004
The Honorable Charles Norwood
Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Workplace injuries and illnesses affect millions of workers each year,
often changing their lives and reducing employers' profitability through
higher costs and lowered productivity. Ensuring safe and healthy
conditions at the 7 million U.S. worksites that employ 114 million workers
is the responsibility of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). The agency's enforcement program-primarily conducting
inspections of employers' worksites-has been the foundation of its
efforts to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulations. However,
OSHA can only inspect a small fraction of all worksites each year. In
2002,
for example, the agency and its state counterparts conducted almost
96,000 inspections. Furthermore, the growth in the number of worksites
over time, as well as changes in the workplace, have added to OSHA's
challenge. To help meet its responsibilities, the agency has increasingly
supplemented its enforcement efforts with "voluntary compliance
strategies." These are initiatives in which OSHA invites employers to work
cooperatively with the agency to protect the safety and health of workers.
While in the past enforcement has been the agency's predominant
approach to achieving its mission, voluntary strategies may provide
important opportunities to extend the agency's influence.
Given the desirability of reaching additional employers and employing
OSHA's resources most effectively, you asked us to provide you with
information on (1) the types of voluntary compliance strategies OSHA uses
to improve workplace safety and health and the extent to which it reaches
employers through these strategies, (2) the effectiveness of these
voluntary compliance strategies, and (3) additional strategies that could
further OSHA's mission to protect the safety and health of workers. We
focused our review on OSHA's four voluntary compliance programs: the
Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), the State Consultation Program, the
Strategic Partnership Program, and the Alliance Program.1
To address these objectives, we reviewed the agency's strategic management
plan as it relates to these voluntary compliance programs; analyzed
budgetary, participant, and other data on program trends; and reviewed the
policies and procedures for each program, including data reporting
requirements. We reviewed evaluations of OSHA's voluntary compliance
programs as well as published research about these programs. In addition,
we obtained information about each program from officials at OSHA
headquarters and selected regional and area offices. To further our
understanding of the Alliance Program, we interviewed representatives from
several trade and professional organizations that participate in the
program. To further our understanding of the other three programs, we
visited participants in three geographically dispersed federal OSHA states
that represented different OSHA regions: Georgia, Illinois, and
Massachusetts. In each state, we visited three employers-one that
participated in the VPP, one in the State Consultation Program, and one in
the Strategic Partnership Program. At each of these employers, we
interviewed management and members of the safety committee and conducted a
focus group of employees not directly involved with safety and health
issues. Finally, we interviewed a broad range of researchers and
specialists from universities, professional and trade associations,
employee and employer organizations, and consulting firms about the
implementation and effectiveness of OSHA's voluntary compliance strategies
and analyzed their suggestions for additional strategies for voluntary
compliance. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards between March 2003 and February 2004.
OSHA has implemented its voluntary compliance strategies through four
programs, and compliance assistance activities, that have extended its
reach to a growing number of employers. While worksites directly involved
in these programs represent a small fraction of the 7 million sites over
which OSHA has authority, their numbers suggest an expansion in the number
of employers the agency is able to reach through enforcement.
1The State Consultation and the Strategic Partnership programs are
sometimes referred to by slightly different names. The State Consultation
Program is also known as the Onsite Consultation Program and the
Consultation Program and the Strategic Partnership Program is also known
as OSHA Strategic Partnerships for Worker Safety and Health.
Results in Brief
OSHA's four voluntary compliance programs have involved employers both
directly and indirectly through trade and professional associations. These
programs represent a mix of strategies designed to reach different types
of employers, including those that recognize employers with exemplary
safety and health practices and programs designed to address serious
hazards in workplaces. The State Consultation Program-a state-run, but
largely OSHA-funded, program-provides consultations, usually
confidentially, to small businesses in high-hazard industries and exempts
worksites that meet certain standards from routine inspections. Almost
29,000 consultation visits were made in 2003 as a part of this program.
The VPP recognizes employers with exemplary safety records and practices
by exempting them from routine inspections. The VPP has grown
substantially over the past decade and currently includes over 1,000
worksites. The Strategic Partnership Program encourages employers in
hazardous industries to develop measures for eliminating serious hazards.
To date, there are more than 200 partnerships. In the Alliance Program,
OSHA has collaborated with more than 160 organizations, such as trade and
professional associations, to promote better safety and health practices
for their members. To support all of its voluntary compliance strategies,
OSHA has increased the proportion of resources dedicated to them from
about 20 percent of its total budget in fiscal year 1996 to about 28
percent in 2003. The agency also plans to expand its voluntary compliance
programs in the future, although national and regional OSHA officials we
interviewed acknowledged that doing so would be difficult given the
agency's current resources. For example, OSHA plans an eight-fold increase
in the number of worksites for the VPP, from 1,000 to 8,000.
OSHA's voluntary compliance programs have reduced injuries and illnesses
and yielded other benefits, according to participants, OSHA officials, and
occupational safety and health specialists, but the lack of comprehensive
data makes it difficult to fully assess the effectiveness of these
programs. Participants we interviewed in the three states and nine
worksites we visited told us they have considerably reduced their rates of
injury and illness. They also attributed better working relationships with
OSHA, improved productivity, and decreased worker compensation costs to
their involvement in the voluntary compliance programs. However, much of
the information on program success was anecdotal, and OSHA's own
evaluation of program activities and impact has been limited to date. OSHA
currently does not collect complete, comparable data that would enable a
full evaluation of the effectiveness of its voluntary compliance programs.
For example, OSHA requires participants in the Strategic Partnership
Program to file annual reports but does not collect consistent information
about each partnership. The agency has begun planning but
has yet to develop performance measures to use in evaluating the programs
and a strategic framework that will allow it to set priorities and
effectively allocate its resources.
Researchers, safety and health practitioners, and other specialists we
interviewed suggested additional strategies for protecting the safety and
health of workers, some of which might require legislative changes. Some
might help OSHA leverage its existing resources; others could require
additional resources to implement. In broad terms, these strategies would
(1) provide incentives designed to encourage more employers to voluntarily
improve safety and health in the workplace; (2) promote more systematic
approaches to workplace safety and health; (3) focus more of OSHA's
voluntary efforts on high-hazard, high-injury workplaces; and (4) use
third-party approaches to conduct safety and health evaluations or develop
voluntary safety and health standards. While these strategies were offered
as being potentially useful, the specialists also acknowledged that some
could necessitate additional safeguards, oversight, and enforcement. For
example, using financial incentives such as tax credits could encourage
employers to make safety and health improvements, but they could also
entail lost tax revenue and "improvements" whose safety or health outcomes
are difficult to substantiate. Furthermore, in its efforts to implement
similar strategies in the past, OSHA experienced regulatory and legal
challenges that would have to be considered carefully in implementing some
of these strategies.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to strengthen OSHA's
voluntary compliance strategies by identifying cost-effective ways of
obtaining data for evaluation and by developing a strategic framework that
sets priorities and identifies resource allocations among these programs,
before further expanding them. We are not making recommendations on any
strategies proposed by researchers and specialists we interviewed.
In its written comments on our draft report, OSHA generally agreed with
our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. In addition, we received
technical comments from OSHA officials, which we incorporated in the
report as appropriate.
Background Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act
in 1970 to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for every worker in
the nation. OSHA has responsibility for enforcing the provisions of the
act, including overseeing most worksites, with the exception of some small
employers in
low-hazard industries and small farming operations. OSHA has direct
enforcement responsibility for about half the states; the remainder have
been granted authority for their own enforcement. At present, 22 states
have been approved by OSHA to operate their own programs covering all
worksites; 4 are approved for covering public sector employee worksites
only; and OSHA directly oversees all worksites in the remaining states.2
OSHA uses two approaches to ensure compliance with federal safety and
health laws and regulations-enforcement and voluntary compliance.
Enforcement, which represents the preponderance of agency activity, is
carried out primarily by using compliance officers to inspect employer
worksites. Worksites and employers whose conditions fail to meet federal
safety and health standards face sanctions, such as paying penalties for
violations of health and safety standards. In this enforcement capacity,
OSHA targets employers for inspection using injury and illness rates for
industries and specific worksites. For example, it has targeted the
construction industry for inspections because of high injury and illness
rates. OSHA also conducts inspections when employers report fatalities or
serious injuries and when workers file complaints about serious safety and
health hazards. The voluntary compliance approach, in contrast, invites
employers to collaborate with the agency and uses a variety of incentives
to encourage them to reduce hazards and institute practices that will
foster safer and healthier working conditions. Such incentives include
free consultations, exemption from routine inspections, and recognition
for exemplary safety and health systems.
To participate in voluntary compliance programs, employers must also meet
certain requirements, which often include the adoption of some form of
safety and health management program-a program that takes a systems
approach to preventing and controlling workplace hazards.3 OSHA has four
basic requirements for a safety and health management program:
(1) Management Leadership and Employee Involvement-Top-level management
must be committed to carrying out written comprehensive
2States that are granted authority for their own enforcement are referred
to as "state-plan states." Under the OSH Act, "state" is defined to
include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. See
29 U.S.C. S:652(7).
3OSHA established guidelines for voluntary safety and health programs in
1989.
safety and health programs. Employees must be actively involved in the
execution of the program.
(2) Worksite Analysis-Employers must have a thorough understanding of all
hazardous situations to which employees may be exposed, as well as the
ability to recognize and correct these hazards.
(3) Hazard Prevention and Controls-The program must have clear procedures
for preventing and controlling hazards identified through worksite
analysis, such as a hazard tracking system and a written system for
monitoring and maintaining workplace equipment.
(4) Safety and Health Training-Training is necessary to reinforce and
complement management's commitment to safety and health and to ensure that
all employees understand how to avoid exposure to hazards.
To keep pace with the increasing demands on OSHA staff to help administer
and promote voluntary compliance programs, in 2001 OSHA created the new
position of "compliance assistance specialist." According to OSHA
officials, funding for this position was authorized in fiscal year 2002.
Compliance assistance specialists provide general information about OSHA
standards and promote voluntary compliance programs, as well as OSHA's
compliance assistance resources, such as training and Web site resources.
They also respond to requests for help from a variety of groups and
participate in numerous seminars, workshops, and speaking events. Most
specialists are former OSHA compliance officers who conducted inspections
of employers' worksites. In their new positions, the specialists are not
involved in OSHA's enforcement activities. There is one Compliance
Assistant Specialist position in each OSHA area office in states under
federal jurisdiction, with a total of 65 in fiscal year 2003.
OSHA's strategic management plan identifies particular safety and health
problems and industries on which to focus the agency's efforts. In its
current 5-year plan for years 2003 through 2008, one of the agency's three
goals is to promote a safety and health culture through compliance
assistance, cooperative programs, and strong leadership. This goal
includes increasing the number of participants in voluntary compliance
programs and improving the programs' effectiveness. Another goal is to
reduce occupational hazards by, for example, reducing the rate of
workplace injuries and illnesses by 5 percent annually. OSHA's third goal
focuses on strengthening the agency's capabilities and infrastructure,
including improving the agency's access to accurate, timely data, and
enhancing its measures for assessing the effectiveness of its programs.
OSHA Has Employed a Variety of Voluntary Compliance Strategies, Which Has
Extended the Agency's Reach to a Growing Number of Employers
OSHA's voluntary compliance strategies-four programs plus compliance
assistance activities such as education and outreach-have expanded the
agency's reach to a growing number of employers. The agency's four
programs reach a range of employers and use a mix of strategies. They
target both exemplary worksites and hazardous ones, and they influence
employers directly by implementing safety and health programs and
indirectly through collaboration with trade and professional associations.
Some programs offer employers incentives to participate, such as a reduced
chance of on-site inspection or special recognition for safety and health
programs. Two of the programs were officially introduced in the last
decade, adding to the number of participants engaged in voluntary
compliance. OSHA plans to dramatically increase the number of employers
and organizations participating in voluntary compliance programs. However,
OSHA officials expressed concerns that such plans for expansion could tax
the agency's limited resources.
Voluntary Compliance Programs Are Designed to Reach a Range of Employers
OSHA's voluntary compliance programs have been implemented incrementally
to reach different employers and worksites in various ways. They represent
a mix of strategies to help improve workplace conditions (see table 1).4
4The VPP and Strategic Partnership programs discussed in this report
primarily apply to states directly under OSHA authority, known as federal
OSHA states. These programs have also been implemented in some state-plan
states, although their requirements may vary from those in federal OSHA
states. In state-plan states, program safety and health standards, and the
enforcement of such standards, must be at least as effective as federal
OSHA programs. See 29 U.S.C. S:667(C)(2).
Table 1: Summary of OSHA's Four Voluntary Compliance Programs
techniques. Voluntary Protection Single worksites typically with Recognizes
worksites that have
Programs 1982
injury and illness rates below average for their industry sector.
safety and health programs with specific features that exceed OSHA
standards.
Employers must pass a weeklong on-site worksite review by OSHA personnel.
Participants complete yearly self-evaluations.
OSHA recertifies worksites every 1 to 5 years.
Strategic Priority for Flexible agreements OSHA conducts
Partnership participation is between verification
given
Programa to groups of OSHA and partners inspections for a
employers and to address percentage of
employees in partner worksites to
1998 high-hazard a specific safety ensure compliance with
workplaces, with a and health problem. the partnership
focus on
employers working
at multiple agreement.
worksites.
Alliance Trade and Agreements with OSHA meets quarterly
Program professional organizations with
organizations, that focus on participants to ensure
2002 employers, labor training, outreach, progress toward
unions, and promoting the alliance goals is
governmental consciousness being met.
of safety and
organizations. health issues.
Source: GAO analysis.
aWhile OSHA had partnership agreements prior to 1998, the Strategic
Partnership Program was not formalized until that year.
In addition to these formal programs, OSHA conducts other compliance
assistance activities, such as outreach and training activities, to aid
employers in complying with OSHA standards and to educate employers on
what constitutes a safe and healthy work environment.
State Consultation Program The State Consultation Program, begun in 1975,
operates in every state. Its primary focus is to help small businesses
employed in high-hazard industries comply with OSHA standards and address
their methods for dealing with worksite safety.5 The agency funds all
state governments to carry out the program. In fiscal year 2003, OSHA
provided $53 million to state governments. States provide free
consultation visits at employers' requests to identify safety and health
hazards and discuss techniques for
5The State Consultation Program defines a small business as one with fewer
than 250 workers at the workplace where the consultation is conducted and
no more than 500 workers companywide.
their abatement. In fiscal year 2003, state agents conducted about 28,900
consultation visits. 6 The names of employers receiving consultation
visits are kept confidential and separate from OSHA enforcement
officials.7 Depending on an employer's request, a state consultant may
conduct a full safety and health hazard assessment of all working
conditions, equipment, and processes at the worksite, or he or she may
focus solely on one particular hazard or work process. Employers receive a
detailed written report of the consultation findings and agree upon a time
frame for eliminating the hazards.
Small employers receiving consultation visits may qualify for recognition
in the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP), which
exempts them from general, scheduled inspections for 1 or 2 years as
models for good safety and health practices.8 Participants in SHARP must
have safety and health programs, which are management programs, in place
to prevent and control occupational hazards. In fiscal year 2003, there
were 699 SHARP worksites in both federal OSHA states and state-plan
states. Although SHARP worksites are exempt from scheduled inspections,
they are still subject to inspections resulting from employee complaints
and other serious safety and health problems, such as fatalities.
6Program data for the State Consultation Programs in this report refer to
the states operating State Consultation Programs under section 21(d) of
the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 670(d)). These include 48 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands.
Kentucky, Washington, and Puerto Rico operate consultation programs under
other authority.
7Consultation visits are not kept confidential in situations where
imminent danger or serious hazards are not corrected as agreed upon or
where the employer participates in state's inspection deferral or
recognition and exemption program.
8Each state operating a State Consultation Program under section 21(d) of
the OSH Act must operate a recognition and exemption program, but programs
operating in state-plan states may use program names other than SHARP.
Figure 1: Example of a SHARP Worksite
We visited a SHARP worksite that employed approximately 40 workers
involved in the manufacture of equipment and facilities used to produce
hydrogen. The facility's impetus for joining SHARP was a push from new
corporate management that saw the facility's safety processes as not
adequate. Additionally, management at the facility was increasingly
recognizing that their clients were interested in their safety records and
that it was an important means of attracting new work. Since joining the
program, the company has undergone significant changes in its safety and
health procedures and has made significant improvements to the facility.
For example, the facility installed an expensive sprinkler system in a new
building on the worksite that was not required by the fire department
because of a suggestion made by a state consultant. Although the
facility's management did not think the building posed a safety threat to
workers, the SHARP status meant enough to them that they chose to install
the expensive system. Employees at the facility commented that the SHARP
status is a source of pride for them and that employees remind each other
about the importance of safety issues.
Voluntary Protection Programs
Source: GAO analysis.
The Voluntary Protection Programs, established in 1982, are designed to
recognize single worksites with exemplary safety and health programs. As
of September 30, 2003, there were a total of 1,024 VPP worksites in both
federal OSHA and state-plan states.9 The manufacturing and chemical
industries comprise 21 percent and 20 percent of these recognized
worksites, respectively (see fig. 2).
9As of February 29, 2004, the number of VPP worksites in both federal OSHA
and state-plan states had increased to 1,053 worksites.
Figure 2: Federal and State-plan State VPP Worksites, by Industry
Percent
21
0
ehouserWaand storage
Refineries PlasticsFood products Utilities ServicesConstruction tiles Otheraper
products
ood products W
gChemicalManufacturin
xTe
P
Source: OSHA.
The majority of VPP worksites in federal OSHA states have more than 200
employees (see fig. 3). While the VPP does not specifically target large
businesses, they tend to be the businesses that attain VPP status.
According to an OSHA official, this trend is due to the fact that large
businesses tend to have staff and expertise available for a comprehensive
safety and health program.
Figure 3: Federal VPP Worksites, by Size of Employer
To participate in VPP, employers must have worksites that exceed OSHA
standards and they must commit to a process of continual improvement.
Employers achieving all VPP requirements are designated as Star VPP
worksites, which signifies the highest level of workplace safety and
health.10 As of September 30, 2003, 92 percent of all VPP worksites in
federal OSHA states have Star designation.11 To be eligible for this
exemplary status, employers must meet a number of specific requirements
for their worksite: (1) worksite injury and illness rates must be below
the average rate for their industry sector for at least 1 of the 3 most
recent years; (2) a safety and health program must have been implemented
and
10VPP programs in state-plan states are not required to have the same
requirements as the federal VPP.
11This percentage refers only to VPP worksites in federal OSHA states. The
remaining
8 percent of VPP sites are designated as Merit (7 percent) or
Demonstration (1 percent). Merit worksites have not achieved all the
necessary requirements for Star by the time of the on-site review, but
have demonstrated the potential and willingness to achieve the Star
designation. Demonstration worksites are worksites with safety and health
programs that meet VPP Star requirements, but they test alternative ways
to achieve safety and health excellence that may differ from these
requirements. Demonstration worksites may lead to changes in VPP Star
criteria.
maintained for at least 1 year; and (3) worksites must undergo and pass a
comprehensive review by OSHA personnel, including an on-site review of the
facility and interviews with management officials and employees. In
exchange for OSHA recognition, VPP worksites are exempt from scheduled
enforcement inspections. However, VPP worksites are still subject to
inspections resulting from employee complaints and other significant
events, such as fatalities.
Figure 4: Example of a VPP Worksite
At a food processing VPP Star worksite we visited, management credited the
VPP with reducing employee injuries, helping to decrease workers'
compensation premiums by more than $200,000, and creating more trust
between employees and management. The facility has been part of VPP for
over 4 years and has implemented a safety and health program to alleviate
and control workplace hazards. Management acknowledged employee
involvement as the key to their successful program. Employees participate
in a number of safety and health committees and meet weekly to discuss
issues that surface regarding safety and health. Additionally, employees
conduct safety and health training courses for other employees and
participate in tours of other facilities to acquire new ideas for
improving safety and health practices at their worksite. An employee we
spoke with said that there have been major changes in employees' and
management's attitudes about safety and health since the facility has been
part of the VPP program and another employee noted that safety now
encompasses almost all aspects of his job.
Source: GAO analysis.
To attract additional VPP worksites and expand the overall program, OSHA
has recently announced three new VPP initiatives:
o VPP Challenge: a program that will serve as a roadmap to help
employers, particularly small employers, achieve VPP status regardless of
their current level of safety and health.
o VPP Corporate: a program that offers a more streamlined application
process for corporations that already have worksites in VPP and want to
bring additional worksites into the program.
o VPP Construction: a program that builds on information learned at
previous VPP demonstration worksites and is designed to make it easier for
construction worksites, particularly temporary worksites, to apply for and
attain VPP status by, for example, reducing the amount of time that safety
and health improvements must be in place.12
12OSHA plans to pilot both the VPP Challenge and VPP Corporate programs
for at least 1 year before formally implementing them. The VPP
Construction program is expected to be implemented in fiscal year 2005,
according to an OSHA official.
Strategic Partnership Program
The Strategic Partnership Program, formalized in 1998, is designed to help
groups of employers and employees working at multiple worksites in
high-hazard workplaces to address a specific safety and health problem. As
of September 2003, 66 percent of partnerships are construction-related. A
partnership agreement sets goals, such as the reduction of injuries,
specifies a plan for achieving them, and provides procedures for verifying
their completion. Some partnership agreements may also require the
development of a safety and health management program and the involvement
of employees in carrying out the partnership agreement. The program does
not offer exemption from enforcement inspections but does offer other
incentives. These include limiting scheduled inspections on only the most
serious prevailing hazards, penalty reductions for any hazards cited
during an inspection, and priority consideration for the State
Consultation Program.
Figure 5: Example of a Strategic Partnership
A collection of roofing contractors we visited formed a Strategic
Partnership with four OSHA area offices to address hazards in the roofing
industry. A partner told us that the partnership improved communication
between OSHA and the contractors and allowed them to develop a mutually
agreeable solution to a safety and health problem. He noted an example of
a kettle used to melt roofing materials that was located on the roof of a
high-rise building that caused a fire. As a result of this accident, OSHA
prohibited roofing companies from using kettles on roofs to melt roofing
materials. The roofers told OSHA that they needed to use these kettles on
high-rise buildings to perform their jobs and used the Strategic
Partnership as a vehicle to discuss their concerns with OSHA. As a result
of these discussions, OSHA and the roofers developed a 10-step plan that
allows roofers to put kettles on roofs with some new safety precautions. A
partner commented that they intend to continue to use the Strategic
Partnership as a way to work collaboratively with OSHA to address future
concerns that arise.
Source: GAO analysis.
Partnerships can be developed on an area, regional, or national basis.
When a national partnership is established, it must be implemented in all
area and regional OSHA offices where a partner has a worksite. For
example, the Associated Builders and Contractors created a national
Strategic Partnership with OSHA that was implemented at the local level
between the association's chapters and area and regional OSHA offices. As
of September 2003, there were 205 operating Strategic Partnerships in
federal OSHA states, about 87 percent of which represented industries or
areas of emphasis in OSHA's Strategic Management Plan (see fig. 6).13
13As of February 29, 2004, the number of partnerships had increased to
215.
Alliance Program
Figure 6: Strategic Partnership Programs in Federal OSHA States, by
Industry or Area of Emphasis
OSHA officials attributed the fact that so many partnerships are
construction-related to the national partnership with the Associated
Builders and Contractors. This partnership provided a template from which
other construction partnerships were developed. Additionally, OSHA
officials informed us that, because it was originally difficult for
construction worksites to enter into VPP, employers in the industry who
wanted to enter into a voluntary compliance program with OSHA had tended
to form a strategic partnership. While a few strategic partnerships are
very large, most participating worksites are small businesses with 50 or
fewer employees.
The Alliance Program targets trade, professional, and other types of
organizations to work collaboratively with OSHA to promote workplace
safety and health issues.14 Alliances can be formed through national or
14A trade association is an organization made up of individuals and
employers in the same industry (e.g., construction, textiles,
shipbuilding), whereas a professional association is made up of a number
of practitioners employed in a given profession (e.g., safety engineers,
industrial hygienists). Educational institutions, businesses, labor
organizations, and government agencies may also join the Alliance Program.
regional offices. As of September 2003, approximately 51 percent of OSHA's
national alliances were with trade associations and 38 percent were with
professional associations.15 The Alliance Program, which included 100
alliances as of September 2003, is one of OSHA's newest and least
structured voluntary compliance programs. In contrast to the other three
voluntary compliance programs which typically include safety and health
programs at specific employer worksites, alliance agreements focus on
goals such as training, outreach, and increasing awareness of workplace
safety and health issues. To date, alliances have participated in a
variety of activities, such as (1) creating electronic informational tools
that have been posted on the OSHA Web site, (2) developing
industry-specific voluntary guidelines and training materials, and (3)
improving OSHA's training courses. Alliance members are not exempt from
OSHA inspections and do not receive any enforcement-related incentives for
joining an alliance. Instead, OSHA officials informed us that trade and
professional associations have used the Alliance Program as a proactive
method of addressing existing and emerging workplace safety and health
issues, such as ergonomic issues. As of September 2003, 41 percent of
OSHA's national alliances were ergonomic-related. See figure 7 for an
example of an ergonomic-related alliance.
15As of February 29, 2004, there were a total of 167 alliances-53 national
alliances and 114 regional. Of the 53 national alliances, 60 percent were
with trade organizations, 20 percent with professional organizations, and
20 percent with other organizations, including individual employers and
academic institutions, according to agency officials.
Figure 7: Example of an Alliance
Thirteen different national airlines came together to form an alliance
with OSHA to address the ergonomic issues related to baggage handling. A
representative of the alliance that we spoke with commented that he saw
the alliance as a tool for addressing long-term concerns of the industry,
such as, poorly designed airports that lead to ergonomic injuries for
employees. He also noted that the airlines believe that by working
together it sends a stronger message to airport owners for improved
workspaces that will not injure employees. The alliance also has
accomplished some shorter-term goals. For example, in September 2003, the
alliance revised an electronic information tool on the OSHA Web page that
educates airline employees on how to avoid hazards in handling baggage.
The tool uses graphics to provide employees with visual training examples
of how to properly lift baggage to avoid injury. Other airlines that are
not involved with the alliance have expressed an interest in either
joining the alliance or learning more about it.
Other Voluntary Compliance Efforts
Source: GAO analysis.
In addition to its voluntary compliance programs, OSHA conducts numerous
training and outreach activities on a variety of safety and health issues.
These activities augment both the voluntary compliance programs and OSHA's
enforcement program, according to OSHA officials. For example, outreach
activities can be conducted in relation to inspections, in an attempt to
help employers ready themselves for an inspection. The OSHA Training
Institute offers 80 courses on a range of safety and health issues, most
of which are available to the public as well as to OSHA employees for
training. In fiscal year 2003, however, the majority of its almost 5,000
students were OSHA employees. In addition to the Training Institute, OSHA
has 33 Education Centers, nonprofit organizations (mostly universities),
which have agreements with OSHA to teach 16 of the most popular Training
Institute courses. An agency official told us that using these Education
Centers around the country has allowed OSHA to greatly expand the amount
of nonagency personnel who receive training in safety and health issues.
In fiscal year 2003, these centers trained almost 16,000 students,
approximately 98 percent of whom were non-OSHA personnel. Through a grant
program, the agency also distributes some funds to nonprofit organizations
to develop training or educational programs about safety and health issues
of current emphasis in OSHA's Strategic Management Plan.16 In fiscal year
2003, OSHA funded 67 such training grants totaling over $11 million.
16These grants, titled the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, provide
funds on a competitive basis to nonprofit organizations to educate workers
and employers in small businesses and provide training on new OSHA
standards and on hazards identified in OSHA's Strategic Management Plan or
in special emphasis programs.
The agency provides outreach to employers and workers in a number of other
ways, such as through newsletters, brochures, compact discs, speeches, and
conferences. OSHA also mails materials on specific safety and health
issues to target audiences. Regional officials we spoke with said that
several OSHA staff are called upon to conduct outreach efforts because it
requires specialized skills and knowledge of standards. OSHA also works in
cooperation the U.S. Small Business Administration's Small Business
Development Centers.17 Additionally, OSHA recently revised its Web site,
which provides informational tools and referrals on a variety of safety
and health issues. For example, OSHA has a Web service entitled "eTools,"
which offers detailed graphics about specific worksite hazards, how to
remedy them, and how OSHA regulations apply to worksites.
Participation in Voluntary Compliance Has Grown in the Past Decade, and OSHA
Plans Dramatic Increases
While voluntary compliance strategies directly reach relatively few of the
nation's employers, participant numbers have grown since 1998 with the
build-up of programs. Also, in the last decade, most of the programs have
experienced tremendous growth in the number of employers and organizations
that participate.18 For example, the VPP has increased from 122 worksites
in 1993 to 1,024 worksites in 2003, an increase of 739 percent, and the
Strategic Partnership Program grew from 39 partnerships in 1998 to 205
existing partnerships in 2003, a 426 percent increase.19 (See fig. 8.)
17These centers, funded partially by the U.S. Small Business
Administration, are located throughout the country and provide counseling,
training, and technical assistance to assist current or potential small
businesses.
18According to OSHA officials, the agency's budget for the State
Consultation Program limits the extent to which it can expand the number
of consultation visits conducted.
19The number of students trained by OSHA has increased in the same time
period, with the number of students trained more than doubling from 1993
to 2003.
Figure 8: Growth in Voluntary Compliance Programs, 1993 to 2003
Number of worksites, partnerships, or programs
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Source: OSHA.
VPP worksites
SHARP worksitesa
Strategic Partnershipsb
Alliance programsc
aAlthough the State Consultation Program began in 1975, data are only
available starting in 1998 for the SHARP consultation worksites because of
changes in SHARP's program requirements. Figure 8 represents only SHARP
worksites in federal OSHA states.
bThe number of Strategic Partnerships reflects a cumulative total for
federal OSHA states.
cAlliances can represent many different employers.
OSHA plans to expand the number of voluntary compliance program
participants and its compliance assistance activities and has established
strategic goals for doing so. According to OSHA officials, the agency's
fiscal year 2004 goals include the addition of 45 new VPP worksites and 50
VPP Challenge worksites, as well as 50 new strategic partnerships and 75
new alliances.20 Furthermore, OSHA officials have set a target goal of
increasing the number of VPP worksites eight-fold-from 1,000 worksites to
8,000 worksites.21
20These goals represent increases in federal OSHA states; state-plan
states are not included in these estimates because they do not follow
OSHA's Strategic Plan.
21This goal represents new VPP sites in both federal OSHA and state-plan
states. OSHA also plans to increase the number of people trained in
outreach and training programs by 10 percent per year.
Although it is difficult to quantify, the voluntary compliance programs
appear to have extended the agency's influence. For example, through the
agency's enforcement program, OSHA and its state partners conducted almost
96,000 inspections in 2002-reaching no more than and probably fewer than
96,000 worksites. The VPP and Strategic Partnership Program in 2003
directly reached some 6,000 employers, who may not have otherwise been
selected for OSHA inspections. These two programs, together with the State
Consultation Program, covered approximately 2.3 million of the more than
100 million employees under OSHA's oversight. Additionally, although OSHA
may not have direct contact with an employer as part of its Alliance
Program or training and outreach activities, employers are reached
indirectly through the dissemination of safety and health information,
which, according to our discussions with Alliance participants, has helped
employees learn about workplace safety and health issues.
OSHA's Expansion of Voluntary Compliance Programs May Tax Its Limited
Resources
The resources OSHA devotes to its voluntary compliance strategies consume
a significant and growing portion of the agency's limited resources. In
fiscal year 2003, OSHA executed its numerous programs under a $450 million
budget. The agency spent $126 million on its voluntary compliance programs
and compliance assistance activities- approximately 28 percent of its
total budget-and about $254 million, about 56 percent of its budget, on
enforcement activities.22 The percentage of resources dedicated to
voluntary compliance programs and compliance assistance activities has
increased by approximately 8 percent since 1996, when these programs
represented about 20 percent of the agency's budget.23 During this same
period, the proportion of resources OSHA dedicated to its enforcement
activities fell by 6 percent, from about 63 percent to about 56 percent of
the agency's total budget, although the total funds devoted to enforcement
have remained fairly constant because of
22Of the $254 million devoted to enforcement activities, $91 million was
given to state-plan states to administer their safety and health programs.
These states use a portion of these funds to carry out compliance
assistance activities. In addition, some resources that are devoted to
other programs, such as technical support, are used for compliance
assistance activities.
23Although OSHA changed the way in which it accounts for its budgetary
resources in fiscal year 1997, we obtained actual budget values for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 from the Budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, respectively, which took into account these changes.
increases in OSHA's total budget over this period.24 In addition,
enforcement efforts, as measured by the number of inspections, have
remained constant or increased slightly each year, according to agency
officials. While it cannot be determined that resources were directly
redistributed from enforcement to compliance assistance activities,
funding for OSHA's other programs remained relatively stable, with only
small increases or decreases in funding since 1996 (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Use of OSHA's Budget for Fiscal Years 1996 to 2003, by Program
Percent of OSHA's budget
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
($345) ($362) ($370) ($384) ($408) ($455) ($453) ($450)
OSHA programs (Total budget in
millionsa)
Enforcement
Voluntary compliance strategies
Other programsb
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: The budget values in this figure represent actual values for fiscal
years 1996 through 2003. In fiscal year 1997, OSHA changed the way in
which it accounts for its budgetary resources. However, we obtained actual
budget values for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 from the Budget of the U.S.
Government for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, respectively, which took into
account these changes.
24While the average yearly growth in the funds budgeted for OSHA's
enforcement activities from 1996 to 2003 was about 2.5 percent, the
average yearly growth in funds for voluntary compliance strategies for the
same period was over 9 percent.
aDollars were adjusted to 2003 values using the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) Price Index. The GDP Price Index was recalculated to make 2003 the
base year by dividing the index for a given year by the 2003 index. For
example, to calculate the index using a base year for 2003, the formula to
recalculate 1991 is (0.8430/1.0585).
b"Other programs" includes "Safety and Health Standards," "Technical
Support," "Safety and Health Statistics," and "Executive Direction and
Administration."
Notwithstanding their voluntary nature, all of OSHA's voluntary compliance
programs require agency oversight to ensure that participants comply with
requirements or agreements and this growing administrative responsibility
requires concerted agency resources. For example:
o To certify a worksite as a VPP worksite requires a comprehensive
on-site review that usually lasts 1 week and involves approximately three
to five OSHA personnel. In contrast to the SHARP on-site review, VPP
employers use their own resources to implement their safety and health
programs and the program must be functional before OSHA personnel come to
the worksite to conduct the on-site review for Star approval.
Additionally, OSHA reviews participants' yearly self-evaluations to ensure
that injury and illness rates have not increased beyond program
requirements and any changes that have been made to the safety and health
program. Furthermore, VPP worksites must be recertified every 1 to 5
years, depending on their VPP designation. A VPP worksite recertification
involves an additional on-site review by OSHA personnel, similar in
duration and comprehensiveness to the original on-site review.
o In the Strategic Partnership Program, OSHA conducts verification
inspections for a percentage of partner worksites to ensure that partners
are abiding by the partnership agreement.
o The Alliance Program involves quarterly meetings with Alliance members
to ensure progress towards alliance goals are being met. Additionally,
OSHA training staff reviews all alliance training materials to ensure
their accuracy with OSHA standards.
Furthermore, while the State Consultation Program is run by the states,
OSHA largely funds the program, and its plans to expand the SHARP program
will require additional agency resources and oversight on the part of
state consultants. State consultants must work closely with employers to
help them improve and implement their safety and health programs because
most small employers do not have the resources necessary to attain SHARP
status on their own. The consultant also must conduct a one-or-more day
on-site review of the worksite to ensure that the employer has addressed
all workplace hazards and properly implemented a safety and health
program. Additionally, SHARP worksites are
reevaluated every 1 to 2 years, depending on the amount of time a worksite
has been in the program and the recommendation of the state consultant.
These reevaluations require another on-site review of the worksite by the
state consultants.
Expansion of OSHA's voluntary compliance programs as planned will further
require such resources, particularly for the oversight of a much larger
number of program participants. According to national and regional OSHA
officials we spoke with, expanding the voluntary compliance programs to
the intended levels will be difficult given OSHA's current resources, and
some expressed concern that too much expansion of some programs may
compromise program quality. Of particular concern to them, they said, has
been the agency's continued focus on increasing the number of VPP
worksites. Several regional officials-whose offices are responsible for
conducting on-site reviews-said that increasing the number of VPP
worksites would strain their resources because of the number of staff
required to conduct reviews of new worksites and re-certifications of
existing worksites.
To date, regional offices have been creative in their methods of handling
the increasing number of participants in voluntary compliance programs.
For instance, the offices have relied increasingly on the use of the
Special Government Employee Program and the Mentoring Program, both a part
of the VPP. The first allows employees from VPP worksites, at the expense
of their employers, to assist OSHA employees in conducting on-site
reviews. OSHA uses the Mentoring Program to match VPP candidates with VPP
employers, who assist the candidates in improving their safety and health
programs and preparing for the on-site reviews. These two programs allow
OSHA to leverage its resources by using employees at VPP worksites to
assist OSHA in carrying out the responsibilities involved in operating the
program, decreasing the number of OSHA personnel needed.
While several regional OSHA officials said these strategies have allowed
them to manage the increase in VPP applicants, they are unsure how many
more they can accommodate without obtaining additional resources.
Voluntary Strategies Appear to Have Many Positive Outcomes, but the Absence of
Comprehensive Data Limits Assessment
While OSHA's voluntary compliance strategies have increased the number of
worksites the agency reaches, and participants and others have provided
enthusiastic testimony regarding their ability to foster better safety and
health practices, the lack of comprehensive data on the outcomes of the
programs has hindered our ability to assess their effectiveness. Employers
we visited said their participation had reduced injury and illness rates,
which in turn had lowered their workers' compensation costs. These
employers and many employees we interviewed also credited OSHA's voluntary
compliance programs with improving employee-management relationships and
their relationships with the agency. However, although OSHA has begun to
collect data on the impact of some of its voluntary compliance programs,
it does not yet have the data needed to assess the effectiveness of these
programs, or make decisions about how to allocate its resources among the
programs.
Participants, OSHA Managers, and Specialists Cited Reduced Injuries and
Illnesses and Other Benefits
Reduced Injuries and Illnesses for Participating Employers
The employers and employees at the worksites we visited, OSHA officials,
and researchers and occupational safety and health specialists identified
many benefits of OSHA's voluntary compliance programs.
The most commonly cited benefit of participating in OSHA's voluntary
compliance programs was the reduction in the number and rate of injuries
and illnesses. All nine employers we visited25 reported that the number of
injuries and illnesses at their worksites had declined since they began
participating in the programs. For example, one VPP site in the paper
industry reported that it typically had 12 to 14 accidents that resulted
in injuries each year before working toward VPP approval, but that the
worksite has reduced that number to 5 accidents or fewer in the last 3
years. Another participant, a partnership comprising eight nursing homes,
reported in its annual evaluation that the injury and illness rate for its
second year of participation had decreased 27 percent. OSHA, based on
25We visited employers participating in OSHA's voluntary programs in
Georgia, Illinois, and Massachusetts. In each state, we visited three
employers-one that participated in the VPP, one in the State Consultation
Program, and one in the Strategic Partnership Program. At each of these
employers, we interviewed management officials and members of the safety
committee, and we also conducted a focus group of employees not directly
involved with safety and health issues. The nine employers we visited were
from the manufacturing, construction (both roofing and steel erection),
transportation (aircraft maintenance), healthcare (nursing home), and food
(meatpacking) industries. The number of employees at the worksites ranged
from about 30 employees to almost 3,000 employees.
Lower Costs
Improved Relationships with OSHA and between Employers and Employees
limited analysis of VPP sites' annual injury and illness data, reported
that participating employers that had effectively implemented workplace
safety and health programs had significantly fewer injuries and
illnesses-54 percent fewer-than comparable worksites in the same
industries that had not implemented such programs.
A second benefit of voluntary compliance programs is decreased costs to
employers, primarily through reductions in workers' compensation
premiums.26 Employers at the sites we visited reported that they had seen
significant decreases in their workers' compensation costs. For example, a
meat packaging facility we visited estimated workers' compensation costs
savings of about $200,000 during the period in which it had been involved
with VPP. In addition to lowered workers' compensation costs, employers
commented that improvements in safety and health had reduced employers'
cost of lowered productivity that resulted from employees missing work
because of injuries and illnesses. Although OSHA has information on its
Web site on how reducing injuries such as by implementing safe procedures
can save employers money, it does not include information on specific
industries. OSHA officials told us that, although the experiences of some
companies in saving money through safety improvements could be helpful to
other employers, some companies are reluctant to share their data on cost
savings with OSHA. However, the agency is developing some of the
information through its Alliance Program. For example, the objectives of
one alliance with a health care company include developing and
incorporating materials into business school curricula that communicate
the business value and competitive advantages associated with implementing
comprehensive safety and health programs in the workplace.
According to employers and employees at worksites we visited, voluntary
compliance programs also improved their relationships with OSHA and
improved the relationships between management officials and employees. At
every worksite we visited, representatives told us they were very
comfortable with interacting with OSHA. Some spoke of a change from
fearing OSHA's visits to seeing them as helpful. For example, management
officials at a steel erector company commented that, before their
partnership, management did not want to talk to OSHA and dreaded its
visits whereas, after participating in the partnership, they have a good
26The reduction in workers' compensation premiums is closely linked to the
reduction in injury and illness rates, since these costs are based on
employers' injury and illness rates.
Increased Responsibility for Safety by Management and Employees
relationship with OSHA staff. Several representatives at the worksites we
visited also commented that they now regularly call OSHA for answers to
safety problems. Some employees at the sites also commented that they have
seen improved relationships with OSHA. For example, the union president at
a VPP site said that, as a result of the close interaction with OSHA staff
during the VPP approval process, he feels comfortable calling OSHA
directly to discuss safety and health issues.
Similarly, employees and employers at several worksites gave examples of
how their participation in these programs resulted in improved
relationships between management and employees. One safety director for a
union involved in a partnership said that after some workers were fired
for not complying with safety rules, they came to the union looking for
support, but because of the involvement of the union in the partnership,
the union supported the disciplinary action. Both management and employees
recounted how important working together was during the approval process
and how those efforts have continued in order to maintain their
participation in the programs, often through team meetings and safety
committee meetings.
Employers and employees at the workplaces we visited also reported a shift
to a safety culture in which they all take responsibility for safety,
thereby contributing to improved productivity, morale, and product
quality. At all the sites we visited, employees spoke of being empowered
to remind others to comply with safety requirements. Several described a
shift in attitude from noncompliance to one in which good safety
procedures, such as wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and
inspecting equipment, were ingrained in daily activities. They also said
that they felt good that management had made the additional investment in
safety. In addition, management officials at several sites said that this
increased attention to safety had benefited their firm in other ways. Some
mentioned that others using their services reviewed the company's safety
records or training, and that the company's recognition as an exemplary
site gave them a competitive advantage. For example, management officials
at one SHARP site whose workers construct facilities on their clients'
worksites said that the SHARP certification helped the company continue to
get contracts for projects. At one VPP site, management representatives
also told us that participation had brought an improved workplace ethic
where employees felt management cared about them, lower absenteeism rates,
and a more disciplined approach to work.
Safety and Health Improvements for Nonparticipating Employers
Improved Safety and Health for Small Employers
In addition to the more anticipated benefits of improving injury and
illness rates and reducing employers' costs, participants commented that
VPP, SHARP, and Strategic Partnership Program participants played a role
in influencing other employers to implement good safety and health
practices. A key component of VPP is outreach to other firms, and
representatives at all three VPP sites we visited spoke of mentoring to
others in their industries. For example, one site hosted a VPP Day to
encourage others within its industry to participate in the program.
Interestingly, one of the VPP sites we visited had been encouraged by
other VPP sites to participate in the program. Participants in the
Strategic Partnership Program and SHARP sites we visited also reached out
to others within their industry, informing them of the value of good
safety and health practices and encouraging their participation in OSHA's
voluntary compliance programs. Some specialists with whom we spoke
commented on the value of this aspect of the programs, although one noted
that the mentoring focus should be on improving employers' safety and
health practices, not on helping employers complete the program
application paperwork.
Employers participating in these programs also sometimes influenced other
employers' practices by requiring them to meet certain standards if they
were working on the participating company's premises or to qualify as one
of the company's subcontractors. In some cases, they also reported that
other companies sought them out as suppliers and contractors because of
their good safety records. OSHA officials also noted that participation in
voluntary compliance programs could influence those companies' suppliers
and contractors to improve their safety. For example, they told us that
many construction contractors now require their subcontractors to have
insurance rates below a certain level-rates that are based on their injury
and illness rates.
Several participants and specialists reported that the State Consultation
Program, Alliance Program, and OSHA's outreach and training help inform
small employers-who typically have less in-house expertise to address
safety and health issues-about how to make safety and health improvements.
The State Consultation Program, which is designed to provide guidance on
specific problems or, more generally, employers' health and safety
management programs, is targeted to small employers. The three sites we
visited that utilized this program had initially sought consultations
because they needed expert advice on safety and health practices that was
not available from their own staff. According to several specialists, the
Alliance Program also connects with small businesses by working through
the trade associations that they participate in, because
the associations build on already existing relationships. In addition, the
OSHA regional offices we visited had used several outreach approaches to
reach out to small employers, for example, a free forum where small
contractors could learn the proper use of cranes and scaffolding.
Similarly, one of OSHA's area offices provided employers training courses
at the local Small Business Development Center on OSHA's requirements-
including its record-keeping requirements-and how good safety and health
practices can save them money. Regional offices have also developed
newsletters for employers in specific industries, such as a letter and
accompanying compact disc on electrical hazards provided by one office to
electrical contractors.
Although we saw evidence of OSHA's efforts to reach more small businesses,
several specialists said OSHA should include more small businesses in
voluntary compliance program activity. A representative from a national
employers association commented that smaller employers fear OSHA because
they do not know what to expect when the agency goes into a business, even
if for compliance assistance activities. Several specialists with whom we
spoke noted that smaller businesses might not be aware of the voluntary
compliance programs that are available. A representative from an insurance
company who addresses risk management regularly commented that smaller
worksites, particularly those that change locations frequently such as
sites in the construction and roofing industries, are more likely to have
safety problems.
Because OSHA Has Just Begun to Collect and Analyze Data on Its Voluntary
Compliance Programs, Their Effectiveness Cannot Be Fully Assessed
OSHA currently lacks the data needed to fully assess the effectiveness of
its voluntary compliance programs. Developing outcome measures is
difficult, particularly when factors other than program participation can
affect key indicators such as injury and illness rates. However, agencies
are required to develop such measures and it is especially important for
OSHA, given its limited resources, to be able to evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs.27 Currently, OSHA does not collect
complete, comparable data needed to measure the value of its programs,
including their relative impact, resource use, and effect on the agency's
mission. In OSHA's current strategic management plan, one of the agency's
three goals includes increasing the number of participants in voluntary
27Since the enactment of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, federal agencies have been increasingly required to focus on
achieving results and to demonstrate how their activities help achieve
agency goals.
compliance programs and improving the programs' effectiveness. Another
goal includes improving the agency's access to accurate, timely data, and
enhancing its measures for assessing the effectiveness of its programs.
However, OSHA has not yet developed a comprehensive strategic framework
that articulates how the programs fit together in accomplishing the
agency's goals or how its resources should be allocated among the various
programs. While OSHA or its state representatives ensure that voluntary
program participants are complying with the programs' requirements, and
often obtains some information on program effectiveness, such as data on
injuries and illness, it does not assess the overall impact of the
programs on worksites' safety and health.
Currently, OSHA's assessments of each program are at a different stage of
development and the approaches vary:
o VPP-Presently, OSHA's analysis of the program is limited to reviewing
VPP sites' annual injury and illness rates in the years immediately before
they are approved for the program. However, because worksites often make
safety and health improvements over a longer period in anticipation of
their participation in the program but before they are approved, the rates
OSHA reviews may not reflect changes in injury and illness rates from
improvements made as a result of their participation. To assess the impact
of VPP, OSHA contracted with a private firm in October 2003 to conduct an
evaluation of the changes in participating employers' injury and illness
rates resulting from the program. The evaluation, to be completed in
September 2004, will evaluate the impact of VPP from the point at which
employers decide to apply for VPP until they are designated a VPP site. It
will also determine the impact of VPP on other worksites through
participating employers' outreach and mentoring efforts and provide data
on dollars spent by VPP sites on safety and health programs and cost
savings from reduced workers' compensation costs. However, because VPP
does not require applicants to provide data on their injury and illness
rates for the years prior to participation, OSHA will still be unable to
systematically assess whether improvements in their injury and illness
rates resulted from program participation.
o State Consultation Program-OSHA has been assessing possible approaches
for obtaining data on these programs, but it has been difficult because of
the confidentiality that state programs provide to program participants.
In an October 2001 report on the program, we suggested that
OSHA collect additional data to use in evaluating its impact.28 In 2002,
an OSHA-sponsored evaluation of the program concluded that the program
resulted in some positive outcomes, including that participating worksites
(1) were cited for fewer serious violations if inspected by OSHA within 2
years of the consultation visit and (2) had larger average declines in
lost workday injury and illness rates than other worksites.29 The report,
however, noted that factors other than the consultation program might have
contributed to these positive outcomes and that further analysis,
particularly the long-term effects of the program, would require the
collection of more data. OSHA attempted to collect such information
through a data initiative it uses to obtain information on the impact of
its enforcement efforts.30 However, in 2002, the Office of Management and
Budget denied OSHA permission to extend this data collection effort to
collect data from all employers, including those with less than 40
employees. These employers represent a significant portion of the
employers that participate in the State Consultation Program, but are not
presently addressed in the data initiative.
o Strategic Partnership Program-Currently, OSHA requires program
participants to file annual evaluation reports. However, according to an
OSHA-requested study of reports submitted through September 30, 2002, the
agency did not collect consistent information from partnerships or use
common performance measures.31 For example, some partnerships did not
submit evaluation reports, while others provided incomplete or
inconsistent information because OSHA allowed participants to select the
types of data reported. Similarly, the U. S. Department of Labor's Office
of Inspector General, which also assessed the program, reported in
September 2002 that there was insufficient information on five of the nine
28U.S. General Accounting Office, Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Should
Strengthen the Management of Its Consultation Program, GAO-02-60
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001).
29John Mendeloff, Ph.D, and Wayne Gray, Ph.D, Evaluation of the OSHA
Consultation Program, report prepared for the OSHA Office of Program
Evaluation and Audits (Lexington, Mass.: July 2002).
30OSHA collects occupational illness and injury information through the
OSHA Data Initiative from employers within specific industries and size
categories. The information is used to identify and target agency
interventions to those employers who have serious workplace problems.
31TATC Consulting, Evaluation of the OSHA Strategic Partnership Program,
(Prepared for the Office of Partnerships & Recognition, Directorate of
Cooperative and State Programs, OSHA) (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2003).
partnerships it analyzed to evaluate their impact.32 For example, one
partnership only provided data on injuries and illnesses for 25 of its 222
participants. In response to these studies, OSHA officials said that they
were obtaining comments on a revised format for these reports that would
include common data elements for all partnerships and that OSHA would then
be able to establish a new database designed to track consistent measures
across partnerships. The revised format for the partnership reports will
be available in Spring 2004, according to an OSHA official.
o Alliance Program-Goals for each alliance are individually developed
and are often not readily measurable. Currently, OSHA monitors goals and
accomplishments of individual alliances by participating in quarterly
meetings and preparing annual evaluations. OSHA officials told us that
OSHA has not yet developed an evaluation approach for the national
program. Several individual Alliance Program representatives from
alliances established in 2002 told us that they have not established a
system for assessing the impact of their alliances, and some commented
that this would be difficult, given the nature of their goals. For
example, one alliance's goals are to provide information and guidance to
help protect employees' safety and health-particularly from hazards likely
to result in amputations and ergonomic hazards-and to provide training to
employers to help identify and correct these hazards. While the alliance
has provided information to employers and workers on its Web sites, and
has developed and provided training, it is difficult to determine the
impact of the alliance since companies also implement safety and health
improvements on their own.
32U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Performance Audit
of Strategic Partnership Program, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, for the Period January 1, 1995 through February 28, 2002,
Report No. 05-02-007-10-001. (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).
Researchers and Other Specialists Suggested a Variety of Additional Voluntary
Compliance Strategies
Researchers, safety and health practitioners, and other specialists we
interviewed suggested a variety of additional strategies for voluntary
compliance, some of which might require legislative changes.33 Some
strategies might help OSHA leverage its existing resources and others
suggest the need for additional resources. The strategies that researchers
and specialists proposed generally fell into four categories: (1)
providing more incentives to encourage additional employers to voluntarily
improve safety and health in the workplace; (2) promote more systematic
approaches to workplace safety and health; (3) focusing more specifically
on high-hazard, high-injury workplaces; and (4) using third-party
approaches to achieve voluntary compliance. While these strategies could
be potentially useful and effective, according to specialists, they could
also entail the need for safeguards, oversight, and enforcement. (See
table 2.)
33To obtain additional suggestions for voluntary compliance, we drew upon
the expertise of a range of people knowledgeable about occupational safety
and health issues, seeking a balance of perspectives. These included
academic researchers who had conducted studies for or about OSHA;
practitioners from safety and health professional associations; current
and former state-plan state administrators of occupational safety and
health programs; specialists representing employer organizations; and
union representatives representing employee perspectives. In selecting
those we interviewed for these discussions, we examined literature from
the field and considered those who had conducted evaluations or published
research on OSHA programs or who had participated in GAO expert panels on
worker protection and workforce issues.
Table 2: Additional Voluntary Compliance Strategies Strategy suggested
I. Provide more incentives for employers to o Develop and publicize
industry-based information on the financial benefits of make safety and
health improvements. improving workplace safety and health.
o Encourage state workers' compensation programs and private insurers to
consider participation in voluntary compliance programs when calculating
premiums.
o Offer tax credits or other incentives to employers for making capital
and other improvements to safety and health.
o Publish injury and illness rates for worksites with poor safety and
health records.
II. Promote more systematic approaches to o Encourage employers
participating in voluntary programs to influence their workplace safety
and health. contractors and suppliers to make safety and health
improvements.
o Require certain employers to have safety and health management
programs.
o Require employers to have an employee-management safety committee.
III. Focus more on high-hazard, high-injury o Focus voluntary efforts on
high-hazard, high-injury workplaces.
workplaces. o Allow employers with high injury and illness rates to
choose between likely inspection and cooperative approaches.
IV. Use third-party approaches to achieve o Support the development of a
voluntary national or international standard for voluntary compliance.
workplace safety and health.
o Allow employers to use private consultants certified by OSHA to
conduct worksite safety and health evaluations, in return for incentives
such as a limited exemption from future inspections or reduced civil
penalties.
Source: GAO analysis of suggestions made by academic researchers, safety and
health practitioners, and other specialists.
Provide More Incentives for Employers to Make Safety and Health Improvements
Specific suggestions for additional financial incentives included (1)
providing information to employers on the possible financial and other
benefits of improving safety and health, (2) encouraging the use of
workers' compensation incentives for employers that participate in OSHA's
voluntary compliance programs, and (3) creating tax incentives for
improvements. Another suggestion was to deter employers from continuing
poor safety and health practices by publishing injury and illness rates
for such worksites.
o Develop and Publicize Information on Financial Benefits-To counter
employer assumptions that safety and health improvements would necessarily
be costly, some specialists called for the agency to develop and publicize
more industry-specific data about the financial and other benefits
possible by investing in safety and health improvements. OSHA provides
general information about the direct and indirect costs of injuries and
illnesses on its Web site and is working to develop more industry data
through its alliances and other voluntary programs.34 As useful as
industry-specific information might be, especially to small employers,
such proprietary data are difficult to obtain and expensive to develop,
according to specialists. Developing this information might also be a
better role for industry than for government. In addition, improving
safety and health could cost employers more money, not less.
o Encourage Workers' Compensation Incentives-OSHA could encourage state
programs and private insurers to consider employers' participation in
voluntary compliance programs when they calculate premiums for
employers.35 Such incentives could include, for example, reductions in
employers' insurance premiums or credits for participation. For many
employers, the possibility of achieving lower insurance premiums could be
a significant motivator for improving workplace safety and health.
However, because each state has its own laws governing workers'
compensation programs, it could prove challenging to create such financial
incentives.36 Furthermore, although some insurers offer rate reductions to
employers that participate in OSHA's voluntary compliance programs,
according to OSHA officials, the agency's other attempts to work with
insurers have not succeeded because they did not want to have clients
perceive them as an agent of OSHA.37 Figure 10 describes the relationship
between workers' compensation and occupational safety and health programs
in two states.
34For example, see
http://www.osha.gov.Publications/JSHQ/fall2002html/safety_health.htm and
http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/safetypays.html.
35Workers' Compensation laws are designed to ensure that employees who are
injured or disabled on the job are provided with fixed monetary awards,
eliminating the need for litigation. Workers are generally protected
through state statutes. Federal statutes provide protection for federal
employees and certain occupational classes.
36OSHA officials said that the reason for this is that the OSH Act may not
displace or affect "in any manner" any state workers' compensation law.
See 29 U.S.C. S:653 (b)(4).
37OSHA has an alliance with one private insurer and has involved insurers
in several partnerships.
Figure 10: Links between Occupational Safety and Health and Workers'
Compensation Programs in Oregon and California
Some state-plan states, such as Oregon and California, have close links
between their workers' compensation programs and the state's occupational
safety and health program, especially in the sharing of data. In both
states, the occupational safety and health program is under the same
department as the workers' compensation program. In Oregon, the two
programs also share the same data system, which allows the state to access
workers' compensation claims data and to focus the state's inspection and
consultation resources on hazardous industries and workplaces. In
California, the occupational safety and health division similarly uses
workers' compensation data to encourage employers with high accident and
illness rates to seek consultations. To fund these targeted consultations,
California also passed a special assessment on its workers' compensation
program for such employers, with sliding fees based on the size of their
payroll.
Source: GAO analysis.
o Offer Tax Incentives for Capital and Other Improvements-Tax
incentives, which would require changes in the tax code, may be especially
useful for helping small employers who might lack resources make safety
and health improvements. Having a tax incentive also signals to businesses
that the government values such investments in safety and health. However,
distinguishing business purposes from safety and health purposes can be
difficult with tax incentives. Tax incentives could also tend to favor
capital-intensive solutions to safety and health problems- such as the
purchase of equipment-rather than behavioral or systematic solutions. They
may also subsidize improvements that employers might have made in any
case. Finally, in addition to the potential for manipulation, using tax
incentives could entail lost tax revenues, without OSHA knowing their
impact on safety and health.
o Publish Injury and Illness Rates for Employers' Worksites- Gathering
and publishing the injury and illness rates for employers' worksites could
build on market incentives to pressure employers to change their
practices.38 For example, a subcontractor might find it difficult to
obtain a contract because of liability concerns if it were known that the
company had a high rate of workplace injuries. Right now, OSHA publishes
the names of about 3,200 worksites identified through its site-specific
targeting program as having high rates of injuries and illnesses,
38One federal agency that uses such an incentive is the Environmental
Protection Agency, which publishes annually the top 10 facilities by
industry that have the largest total toxic chemical releases. The agency
credits its Toxics Release Inventory-a national database that identifies
facilities; chemicals manufactured, processed, and used at these
facilities; and the annual amounts released-with influencing industries to
reduce their chemical releases.
but it does not publish the actual rates for these worksites. However,
there are several potential problems with this approach. First, injury and
illness rates for one particular year may not accurately capture the
performance of employers, especially small employers.39 Second, businesses
would likely oppose the publication of these data because they view
worksite injury and illness rates as confidential business information
that, if published, could allow business competitors to glean information
about the company's productivity. In fact, OSHA took this position when it
denied, in July 2003, a Freedom of Information Act appeal that sought to
obtain rates for specific worksites: OSHA relied on an exemption
protecting trade secrets and commercial or financial information and
refused to disclose the information unless the parties in question
approved.40 Finally, publicizing injury and illness data might also
pressure employers to underreport injuries and illnesses, creating the
need for further policies or legislation requiring full and accurate
reporting and recording.
Promote More Systematic Approaches to Workplace Safety and Health
Specific suggestions from researchers and specialists included (1)
encouraging employers that participate in OSHA's voluntary programs to
influence their contractors and suppliers to make safety and health
improvements, (2) requiring certain employers to have a safety and health
management program, and (3) requiring employers to have an
employee-management safety and health committee.
o Encourage Employers to Influence Contractors and Suppliers-To
"influence the supply chain," OSHA could encourage employers participating
in its voluntary programs to consider suppliers and contractors' safety
and health records before making contracting decisions and encourage their
suppliers and contractors to have a safety and health program. OSHA
currently requires this approach of employers participating in VPP.41
Because employers are increasingly using contractors and temporary
workers, focusing employers' attention on
39A small number of injuries at a small employer's worksite can increase
its injury rates dramatically. For this reason, injury and illness rates
for small employers should be interpreted with caution.
40According to OSHA, the agency's decision was appealed to a U.S. district
court in New York in October 2003.
41VPP participants are required to ensure that safety and health
considerations are addressed in selecting contractors and when contractors
are onsite. In addition, they are required to encourage contractors to
develop and operate effective safety and health management systems.
contractors' and suppliers' safety and health records was considered a
useful way to achieve some leverage in a changing economy.42 Safety and
health problems at contractors and suppliers could also entail potential
costs for employers or could also indicate other forms of poor
management, such as poor product quality. As an example of the
effectiveness of this approach, one automaker grouped its suppliers into
three tiers according to their safety and health records, and then each
tier
of suppliers pressured the lower tier to improve, according to a
specialist
we interviewed. However, the degree of an employer's potential influence
over suppliers and contractors could vary by employer size as well by
industry. For example, a Fortune 500 employer could have far more
influence on its supply chain than a small body shop, and the construction
industry, which relies on numerous subcontractors working under a
general contractor, may be better able to influence subcontractors than
other industries. Implementing this approach may be difficult because
suppliers and contractors may be unwilling to share their safety and
health
records or plans and employers would need staff to conduct such reviews
of its suppliers and contractors. It may be similarly difficult for OSHA
to
monitor and verify this process through employers participating in its
voluntary programs.43
o Require Certain Employers to Have Safety and Health Management
Programs-As discussed in a previous GAO report and testimony,44 OSHA could
require certain employers-such as those with high injury and illness
rates-to have safety and health management programs.45 The establishment
of safety and health programs, including elements such as hazard
prevention and control, is currently required for participants in the
42Voluntary compliance may also be more likely when there is a greater
likelihood that a
firm's customers will take into account its compliance record in making
purchasing
decisions. See Sidney Shapiro and Randy Rabinowitz, "Voluntary Regulatory
Compliance in
Theory and Practice: The Case of OSHA," Administrative Law Review (52
Admin. L. Rev.
97) Winter 2000, p. 13.
43Making it a requirement might raise a number of legal concerns,
including whether such a requirement would exceed OSHA's authority under
the OSH Act.
44U.S. General Accounting Office, Occupational Safety & Health: Options
for Improving Safety and Health in the Workplace, GAO/HRD-90-66BR
(Washington, D.C.: August 1990), pp. 46-48, and Occupational Safety and
Health: Worksite Safety and Health Programs Show Promise, GAO/T-HRD-92-15
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1992).
45OSHA established guidelines for voluntary safety and health programs in
1989. In 1998, OSHA drafted a proposed rule that would have required
employers, except those engaged in construction and agriculture, to
establish a safety and health management program. OSHA withdrew the rule
in August 2002.
VPP, Strategic Partnership, and SHARP programs.46 Extending this approach
to other employers could help prevent additional injuries and illnesses.
It could also help employers respond more flexibly to advances in
technology and other workplace issues than with specific standards. On the
other hand, it could be difficult for OSHA to enforce employers' use of
safety and health programs, and small and mid-size employers may not have
the information or tools to implement these programs without assistance.
In our earlier testimony, we noted that reservations about these programs
stem primarily from concern about implementation issues, rather than about
their value.47
Require Employee-Management Safety Committees-OSHA could issue a
regulation requiring employers to have an employee-management safety
committee at every worksite to investigate accidents, settle disputes, and
provide information to management.48 The VPP does not require employers to
have such a committee at every worksite, but does consider it one way to
achieve employee involvement.49 If required for all employers, such
committees might raise additional issues, including the determination of
who would represent workers.50
Focus More on High-Hazard, High-Injury Workplaces
Specific suggestions for focusing more on high-hazard, high-injury
workplaces included targeting employers with the highest levels of injury
and illness for voluntary programs and having such employers choose
between likely inspection and cooperative approaches with the agency.
o Target Employers with Highest Levels of Injury and Illness-OSHA could
classify employers according to their level of injury and illness and
46About 10 state-plan states require employers to have such programs,
according to a report on state plan activities issued August 12, 2003 by
the Occupational Safety & Health State Plan Association: California, for
example, generally requires employers to set up effective written injury
and illness prevention programs.
47See GAO/T-HRD-92-15, p. 2.
48This suggestion was also discussed in a previous GAO report: See
GAO/HRD-90-66BR, pp. 48-50.
49Oregon makes it mandatory for most employers to have a joint
management-labor safety committee.
50To comply with the National Labor Relations Act, employers may not
dominate committees that are considered "labor organizations." See
Electromation, Inc., 309 N.L.R.B. 990 (1992), enforced, 35 F.3d 1148 (7th
Cir. 1994).
focus the agency's voluntary compliance efforts on those with the highest
rates. While this suggestion was seen as a way for OSHA to best use its
limited resources, according to specialists, it might also entail
additional costs for data development.
o Allow Employers to Choose between Likely Inspection and Cooperative
Approaches-Another suggestion was for OSHA to pursue a previously
attempted strategy targeting employers with the highest rates of injury
and illness.51 The agency informed these employers that they had been
placed on a primary inspection list, but that they could reduce the
likelihood of inspection if they chose to work cooperatively with the
agency by fulfilling certain requirements.52 Now, when OSHA informs
selected employers that they have among the highest injury and illness
rates in the country, the agency refers employers to outside consultants,
insurance carriers, and state workers' compensation offices for advice on
improving safety and health; employers with fewer than 250 employees are
also referred to the State Consultation Program.53
Use Third-Party Approaches
Specific suggestions for third-party approaches included (1) supporting
the development of a voluntary national or international standard for
workplace safety and health and (2) using private consultants to conduct
safety and health evaluations of worksites.
o Support Development of a Voluntary National or International Standard
for Workplace Safety and Health-Having a voluntary national or
international standard could help strengthen the infrastructure for
workplace safety and health and could build on some employers' desire for
a widely recognized credential that could be useful to them in competing
with other companies, especially in global markets. For example, employers
can seek certification from independent organizations
51The implementation of this strategy, the Cooperative Compliance Program,
was challenged in court. The court held that the program was not properly
implemented and that the agency should have implemented it through notice
and comment rulemaking. See Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Department of
Labor, 174 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir.1999). The Cooperative Compliance Program
was based, in turn, on an earlier pilot called the Maine 200 program that
was carried out in the early 1990s.
52Requirements included identifying and correcting hazards, reducing
injuries and illnesses, implementing a safety and health program,
involving employees, and providing OSHA with annual data on injuries and
illnesses.
53OSHA officials noted that, following the issuance of this letter, the
State Consultation programs often report a distinct rise in the number of
requests for consultations.
for achieving International Organization for Standardization standards.54
To a certain extent, OSHA is currently playing a role in the development
of a voluntary standard, according to OSHA, since some OSHA staff members
are assisting a national standards committee that is working on a safety
and health standard. In addition, many industry associations are involved
on this committee, OSHA staff noted. Limitations of this approach are
that: (1) such standards are not mandatory, but serve more as flexible
guidance, because they reflect agreements reached by committees; (2)
although large employers competing in the international marketplace tend
to seek out international standards credentials, these are not necessarily
the employers needing OSHA's attention; and (3) it can be difficult to set
voluntary standards because organizations need to invest resources and
provide appropriate expertise.
o Use Private Consultants to Conduct Safety and Health Evaluations-This
suggestion would entail allowing employers to voluntarily use private
consultants to conduct worksite safety and health evaluations and certify
worksites, in return for incentives, such as a limited exemption from
future inspections or reduced civil penalties.55 Using third-party,
private-sector consultants to certify workplace safety and health was also
proposed in the late 1990s as an amendment to the OSH Act-known as the
SAFE Act.56 Using consultants could leverage existing OSHA resources by
helping workplaces that might never otherwise see an OSHA inspector,
especially small employers, and possibly also by enabling employers to
address additional safety and health issues that might not be covered
under an OSHA inspection for
54The International Organization for Standardization is a nongovernmental
network of national standards institutes from about 150 countries that
issues voluntary standards, including standards for environmental
management. Experts on loan from industries and businesses develop these
standards with assistance from representatives from government agencies,
universities, and laboratories. Audits and certifications of companies
applying for certification are carried out by independent certification
organizations. The United States representative to the international
organization is the American National Standards Institute, a private
nonprofit organization.
55OSHA uses private sector consultants indirectly through its State
Consultation programs as well as Special Government Employees during VPP
evaluations. We commented on this suggestion in our 1990 report on OSHA
options, p. 35.
56The Safety Advancement for Employees Act of 1999, known as the SAFE Act,
was introduced in the 105th Congress as S. 1237 and in the 106th Congress
as S. 385, but was never enacted. The act was designed to encourage
employers to participate in voluntary safety and health audits using the
expertise of consultants certified by OSHA. Participants would have been
exempt from civil penalties for one year if they had been certified as
compliant.
compliance with standards. At the same time, using consultants also raises
various implementation, oversight, and legal issues described below.
(a) Implementation-A key issue is that consultants' independence may be
compromised if employers paid consultants directly for conducting audits
and certifying employers.57 Employers might also need more than one
consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of both safety and health
issues. Finally, the use of consultants would set the federal program in
competition with the State Consultation Program, according to OSHA
officials.
(b) Oversight-One issue is what kind of oversight is possible when
employers will not-or cannot-make improvements that consultants recommend.
Another is that differences in consultants' focus would create
inconsistencies in the certification process, since a workplace evaluation
could focus on compliance with OSHA standards or on the broader safety and
health environment, as under OSHA's VPP, Partnership, and SHARP programs.
(c) Legality-Finally, constitutional issues have been raised as to whether
OSHA can use private consultants, as envisioned by the SAFE Act, to
conduct safety and health evaluations of employers' worksites and to issue
certificates of compliance, exempting employers from civil penalties for a
limited period of time. For example, when Congress was considering the
SAFE Act, the Justice Department argued that the act might be
unconstitutional because, among other things, it delegated executive
functions to private entities without providing adequate supervision or
accountability for their activities. The Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, which had jurisdiction over the
legislation, disagreed with Justice's arguments, asserting that they
reflected a misunderstanding of the proposed role and authority of
third-party consultants.58
57One suggestion to ensure consultants' independence was to have employers
contribute to a fund that OSHA would manage and use this fund to pay
consultants. This approach creates an additional oversight responsibility
for OSHA. Because consultations are provided at no cost to the employer
under the State Consultation Program, setting up a federal program with
user fees for employers may not be feasible.
58See S. Rep. No. 106-202, at 25-26, 63-64 (1999).
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
By many accounts, OSHA's voluntary compliance strategies have improved
employers' safety and health practices by allowing the agency to play a
collaborative, rather than a policing, role with employers. The testimony
and enthusiasm of participants suggests that OSHA's voluntary compliance
programs have considerable value. The agency has begun to develop
performance measures and collect data on some program outcomes, as well as
undertake efforts to evaluate its programs, such as contracting for a VPP
evaluation and revising the performance evaluation format for the
Partnership program. However, because OSHA does not yet have comprehensive
data on its voluntary compliance programs, the agency cannot fully assess
the effectiveness of any single program or compare the relative
effectiveness of the programs. OSHA should position itself to know, for
example, the relative effectiveness of programs that focus on employers
predisposed to following good safety and health practices as compared to
those that attempt to reach employers and industries with poor safety and
health records. Without such information, the agency is also limited in
its ability to make sound decisions about how to best allocate its
resources among individual programs, or between voluntary compliance
programs and its other activities, particularly enforcement.
After several years of experimentation and growth, this is an opportune
time for OSHA to determine how to best target its voluntary compliance
efforts. Having a mix of strategies appears useful in reaching different
types of employers and industries. At the same time, having such a mix may
unduly tax the agency's resources unless it is accompanied by a
comprehensive, strategic framework that establishes priorities and defines
how these strategies fit together to accomplish the overall goals of the
agency. Absent such a strategic framework, OSHA cannot ensure that it is
making the best use of its resources to improve workplace safety and
health. Furthermore, the agency must balance its plans to expand its
voluntary compliance programs with its enforcement responsibilities. Given
OSHA's current resources, it is unclear how it can undertake much
expansion without a careful assessment of the impact on its resources and
other programs. Unless it has such an assessment, OSHA runs the risk of
compromising the quality of its voluntary compliance programs.
In order to strengthen OSHA's voluntary compliance strategies, the
Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health to
o identify cost-effective methods of collecting complete, comparable
data on program outcomes for the VPP and Partnership programs to use in
assessing their effectiveness, and continue to search for cost-effective
approaches that will enable the agency to assess the effectiveness of the
State Consultation and Alliance programs, and
o develop a strategic framework that articulates the purposes and
Agency Comments
distinctions of the different voluntary compliance programs, sets
priorities among these programs, and identifies how the agency's resources
should be allocated among these programs, before further expanding them.
We provided a draft of this report to OSHA for comment. OSHA's formal
comments and our responses are contained in appendix I. In addition to its
written comments, OSHA provided us with technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
OSHA generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The agency asserted, however, that we had based our recommendations on a
small sample of worksites and that our methodology for selecting
researchers and specialists was not scientific and was subject to biases.
We did not base our recommendations on site-specific findings or on
interviews with researchers and specialists, but rather on programwide
data. More specifically, our recommendations were based on our analyses of
OSHA's program requirements and program data as well as the findings and
conclusions reported in the OSHA-sponsored and Inspector General
evaluations of these programs that were cited in our report. Although our
selection of researchers and specialists was, by necessity, judgmental, we
sought to obtain a broad, balanced range of perspectives and expertise
about the programs' effectiveness.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me or Revae Moran on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff
have any questions about this report. Other contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix II.
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Robertson Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
Appendix I: Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
See comment 2.
Appendix I: Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
GAO Comments 1. We added information on page 20 to show that OSHA's
enforcement efforts, as measured by the number of inspections, have
remained constant or increased slightly each year from 1996 to 2003.
2. We did not base our recommendations on site-specific findings or on
interviews with researchers and specialists, but rather on programwide
data.
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(130240)
Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-3863
Deborah A. Signer, (202) 512-7158
Carol L. Patey and Christine A. Houle made significant contributions to
this report in all aspects of the work and Leslie C. Ross assisted during
the
information-gathering segment of the assignment. In addition,
Susan C. Bernstein, Julian P. Klazkin, Lynn M. Musser, and
Walter K. Vance provided key technical and legal assistance.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***